Being highly interested in WWII and the Holocaust, I would choose--and agree--with your fourth statement. Hitler despised the Jews, so it was a personal decision to eradicate the race. He saw Jews as a threat to the German economy and considered mixing with the Jews a genetic impurity to Germans.

I agree that all the statements deal with genocide to some extent. My choice to answer would be Number Four. I would vigorously disagree with the idea that Hitler used it as a political tool to remove threats and fortify his power. The only political tool he needed was his own rhetoric and the platform provided for him by the unjust treatment of Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler's anti-Semitism, indeed that of many Germans at the time, was endemic. He wanted to "cleanse" Europe of the Jews, first by deporting them to Palestine, then Madagascar, then Siberia should his attack on Russia succeed. His policy was one of racial cleansing, genocide pure and simple.

If you wish to pursue the others:

1. Disagree--one only consider the destruction of Carthage and the murder, enslavement of its people. It had nothing to do with stabilizing the Society, but rather in gaining control of the Mediterranean. Most ethic minorities in the Empire were well treated and allowed some degree of self government.

2. Is untrue, as the Spanish attempted to exploit the Indians as well as convert them to Christianity. Many died as a result of Spanish high-handed efforts, but there was no deliberate attempt to exterminate the native population; only to subdue them. There was genocide, but it was caused indirectly.

3. During the First Crusade, "Christian" knights rode through Jerusalem on horseback slaughtering men, women and children along the way. The killing was so great that their horses lost their footing in the blood on the streets. In the third crusade, when Richard III arranged an exchange of prisoners with Saladin, Richard had several thousand prisoners slaughtered when Saladin was one half hour late to the meeting. This is genocide, pure, simple and intentional. They also would constitute a war crime.

I would choose number 2, because although I find all of these statements distasteful, I find that one most distasteful. All of these statements basically condone genocide. There is never a time when genocide is acceptable or necessary. Since you have to choose one, I ask you: which one offends you most? In case the above poster doesn't answer you, I think you could use those arguments for against.

I'd pick the last one and I'd argue both for and against. Yes, Hitler was using the Jews as a way to get power for himself. On the other hand, though, he clearly believed in what he was doing. So he was not just using the persecution of Jews as a political tool. He was doing that, but he was also doing it because he really did hate the Jews and want to get them out of Germany.

I'd pick the last one and I'd argue both for and against.
Yes, Hitler was using the Jews as a way to get power for
himself. On the other hand, though, he clearly believed in
what he was doing. So he was not just using
the persecution of Jews as a political tool. He was doing
that, but he was also doing it because he really did hate the Jews
and want to get them out of Germany.